I think we could cut back on 90% of privacy violations with such a ruling.
For a very specific definition of a privacy violation. From my experience, the vast majority of privacy violation are the result of individual actions, usually from people close to you. For example someone may publish a picture of you without your consent, revenge porn is an extreme example but even good friends can do it to you. They can send stuff to the wrong person(s), use public means of communication, get infected with all kinds of malware, etc... It also won't help with security related issues. Ashley Madison didn't sell anyone's data, pirates did it for them. Properly securing personal data is more important than privacy policies, because you can forget about it once the data is in the hands of criminals. Obviously not storing data in the first place is even better but it is not always possible. And finally, a lot of actors don't actually sell your data, they use it to send you targeted ads without letting advertisers know about you.
We already have an open protocol: XMPP. Everyone, including Google, turned away from it for some reason. The other open protocol that is specific to phones is SMS, which is still the most popular way of communicating in some countries (those where SMS is cheap and reliable).
As mentioned in TFS Go and Chess are complete information games, and that's what AlphaZero is good at. What AI is struggling with for now is incomplete information games, like Poker.
And every job that I know off that isn't already being replaced by robots are VERY incomplete information games. If you want to convince yourself, just read a real life instruction manual or specification document, or even worse, ask a customer what he wants.
Yes, that's how you use OTP. The issues are: - You need a true RNG, i.e. specialized hardware (/dev/random may be ok). And these typically have a rather low bandwidth. That's fine for short message, less so for HD video. - You need to transfer a lot of data using your secure (e.g. physical) channel. As much random data as all the data you intend to send. It means that it can't be memorized or told, you need a physical support, like a USB stick for instance. There is quite a lot of work involved in order to transfer it, store it securely and destroy it. All that logistical nightmare opens a lot of potential attack vectors. Printed paper can be seen on camera, USB sticks can be stolen, your mailbox can be opened, people can follow you to your in-person meeting. - How are you going to tell your partner how to meet you for the OTP transfer? Are you comfortable giving out your physical location on an insecure channel, when your communications are so secret that they justify using an OTP. The catch-22 where you need a secure channel to establish a secure channel is exactly the reason why public key cryptography exist.
OTP has its uses. For example the "red phone" famously used it, and it was perfectly justified, but a communication line between government officials of two competing superpowers is definitely a special case. "Competing" is key here. Because neither knew the the state of the art of the other regarding cryptanalysis, and there is no way they would share that knowledge, a neutral, simple, and proven secure algorithm makes sense despite the logistical nightmare.
I think we should stop with that 24 FPS nonsense. It is not good, it is an artefact caused by technical limitations. Some people say it make films more film-like, that there is some artistic value in it, etc... I call bullshit, it is not a conscious artistic choice, it is a technical limitation. If some directors chose to make some part 24 FPS like others chose to do black and white, then sure, that's art, but choosing that frame rate just because that's how cameras and projectors are setup isn't.
The only argument that makes sense IMHO is one of cost. More FPS is expensive: larger file sizes, more rendering time, a need for more sensitive camera sensors, etc.. Budget that can be better spent elsewhere. There is also value in having a standard, and 24 FPS isn't that bad a choice.
Frame interpolation is a work around that technical limitation, it is far from perfect but some people enjoy it. That's why TV manufacturers put it in here, film snobs be damned. Directors should learn from it instead of calling it "the end of all good things": many people want smooth motion.
That being said, I am totally fine with 24 FPS, and I don't use interpolation, but just be honest and say it is preliminary a cost saving measure, with maybe a hint of nostalgia.
OTP is private key / symmetric cryptography: you have to transfer the one time pad to the other party using a secure channel before you can communicate securely. That would be the equivalent of AES, and AES is still unbroken, even with a hypothetical quantum computer. The advantage of algorithms like AES over OTP is that OTP is very inconvenient. It needs a massive amount of true random data (using a PRNG would turn it into just another stream cipher), and all of it has to be transferred securely. That inconvenience can introduce more security problems than its mathematical perfection solves.
What quantum computers break is public key cryptography. Public key cryptography allows secure communication when no secure channel exists, which is typical on the internet. OTP doesn't fix the problem. If anything, it makes it worse. The reason quantum computer could break current public key cryptography is that all algorithms that are used in practice rely on the fact that the discrete logarithm or integer factorization problems are hard, and quantum computers can theoretically solve them easily using the Shor algorithm.
Apple is right, coverage will be spotty at first, deployment will take time.
However, it won't take long before it becomes an essential feature. And only then, Apple will release a 5G iPhone, and those who bought last year model will buy the new one for that reason. Smartphone are starting to face the same problem as PCs, people don't need to upgrade because the old one is good enough for just about everything, and things are slowing down even more. 5G will be a real upgrade, and apple will make sure to time it well in order to maximize their sales.
I don't know about the US specifically but moving minor crimes to a higher court increases the chances of having it dismissed. A judge accustomed to murder cases probably doesn't want to be bothered with kids running torrent sites and will probably do their best to get them dismissed ASAP in order to deal with serious affairs.
In fact, in France, the strategy is the opposite. Instead of pushing for severe punishment, the music industry wants enforcement to work more like parking tickets: a small fine that is usually payed without even an audience.
The plants you mentioned use EPR, a new kind of reactor, definitely not something designed in the 60s. Like every large scale project, delays and cost overruns are to be expected. Hopefully, future builds will be more profitable and help recover the costs. And I highly suspect that legal and bureaucratic issues played a major part in these delays.
As for the cost going up, it is worth noting that nuclear never was cheap. The reason France is so versed in nuclear power is the result of a political decision, not free market economy. France has always been at the forefront of nuclear technology, and the government wants it to stay that way. It is also France's response to the 1973 oil crisis and a way to limit dependency on fossil fuel imports.
Equifax, Wells Fargo and the NSA are not IBM's competitors, In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they were major IBM customers. Amazon, Google and Microsoft are competitors, Facebook is most likely indifferent so there is no harm (for IBM) to include them.
When companies like Apple and IBM criticize Google and others on privacy grounds, they don't do it because they care about you. They do it because they know that these companies have no other choice since it is their business model. Apple and IBM make money in other ways, like selling overpriced hardware, and if legislation restricts data collection, they will gain a competitive advantage.
It might be true when we are talking about programming.
But code doesn't exist in a vacuum. A web store front sells products, an ECU runs an engine, a video game entertains, a search engine is there for people to find what they need. And you won't be a good programmer unless you know about the job your code is going to accomplish. The store front requires knowledge about the products being sold, and the marketing behind it. The ECU requires some understanding of mechanical engineering, the video game requires understanding of game design and the search engine may involve linguistics. And it takes time to get into something you might know nothing about. And chances are that your next job will be in a completely different field, so while you can capitalize on what you learned when it comes to programming, you are back to square one when it comes to understanding the context.
The mistake is to think that you need all of C++, you don't, especially not if you are a beginner.
You can write C++ like you write C if you want, or on the opposite, go all smart pointer and not write a single "delete" yourself. You can completely ignore templates except for the minimum requited to use the STL (that's if you are using the STL). Not using exceptions is totally fine, a lot of projects don't. And if you want you can use lambdas but no classes. Each feature is a tool for a job, but you don't have to use the entire toolbox at once. But it is good to have them for when you are faced with a specific problem, and then you learn to use it, and get better. Ideally, in a team, there should be an expert with a good grasp on what the language has to offer in order to give directions but having a whole team of experts is in no way required.
An implant is "something you have" not "something you are". Like a badge or a key. If it is properly designed, you can't clone these chips, and what they contain is a secret. You can, however, change them, transfer them, etc... even though the form factor makes it more difficult than usual. It is the opposite of biometrics, which you can't change or transfer, but they are not secret.
The issue is not about intent. The situation is the same with a keypad, RFID reader or a fingerprint scanner. If you enter the code/put your hand one the reader/put your finger on the scanner, you show your intent. The issue is about the fact that neither a fingerprint nor a username are secrets. The private key inside the implanted chip is.
Wait, BFS never flew, we don't even know how it will look like. Same thing for New Glenn. They and SLS are all at the same step which is "no rocket". And considering that SpaceX is a hype machine and Blue Origin is so secretive, there is no way we can get a reliable picture.
Falcon 9 and SLS don't even compare. The first one is a workhorse rocket designed to put a typical payload into LEO cheaply. SLS is designed to go beyond earth orbit. It is reflected by the fuel choice in the second stage. Falcon 9 uses the same cheap and effective kerosene engine as their first stage and SLS uses hydrogen, which is higher performance but harder to work with. So yeah, the Falcon 9 is awesome, but one resounding success doesn't mean they can tackle every problem. And the field where BFR, New Glenn and SLS are playing is an entirely different one.
My money is on none of them, I keep it in my pocket until I can see the rockets flying.
The goal with memory safe languages is not to be absolutely safe, because it is impossible. The goal is to confine the unsafe parts into something manageable. It can be a small library or runtime written in C or even in assembly. Or, in the case of Rust (I didn't read TFA but I suppose it is at least mentioned), into marked "unsafe" blocks.
No one, I think, really blames C for being memory unsafe. They blame the fact it makes the entire code base is potentially unsafe when less than a percent needs to be.
Note that I still think that the security risks associated with C and C++, while real, are overrated when it comes to the language selection.
You are overthinking things. Your data aren't priceless, nothing about you is priceless. There are people whose entire job is to put a dollar amount on everything about you, including your personal data. Google and Facebook are for profit companies, and it is all that matters.
As for taking over the world, you can't do that without force, and Google doesn't have that. On the physical side of things, they are helpless. The second the US government decides that Google is a serious threat, then goodbye Google. These data are useless if you can't access them because there is a guy with a gun between you and the terminal. Big companies are limited to monetizing your data within the socially acceptable limits. And CEOs are perfectly fine with it, because that's how they get to keep their yachts.
I guess it is that weird situation where everyone is fine with X but everyone think the others aren't. C-levels are normally above that.
What is possible is that they don't want the public to see Apple computers at Dell, because it gives out the image of a company not trusting their own products. And that can be mistaken as "executives don't wan't to see an Apple computer", while in fact, they may be the ones who care the least when they are in private.
Some of the high-tech / low-tech weirdness can be explained by the fact that people tend to go high tech only when necessary.
Fax machines saw a much wider adoption in Japan than in the west. One reason is that there are no street names in Japan, so finding a place by its address alone is very difficult, and as a result, the usual way of communicating is to fax a map. With fax machines being so ubiquitous, one could use them for written communication, so there is less need for email. The Japanese were also slow to adopt smartphones, because their cell phones were much more advanced than ours. Interestingly, they could send email, so the personal use of email was a lot more developed in Japan. I also suspect the terrible state of banking and credit cards to have helped the early adoption of NFC payment with public transport cards. There are many other examples, like excellent 3G/4G coverage in some developing countries, because when you need internet access, putting cell towers is cheaper than building a copper wire network from scratch.
It is the usual argument from manufacturers, it is both right and wrong.
Most people really don't care, same for removable batteries, physical keyboards, styluses, etc... What people care about now is a good screen ratio. Manufacturers make phones for the majority and so, omit the niche features and go with the flow (i.e. copy Apple). But in the end, many people don't get what they want and all phones are the same. It is, I think, a manifestation of Hotelling's law. A game theory principle that says that for every actor, it is more profitable to go towards the average, even though the net result benefits no one. It is the same law that can explain why the local McDonald's is right next to the Burger King.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we could cut back on 90% of privacy violations with such a ruling.
For a very specific definition of a privacy violation.
From my experience, the vast majority of privacy violation are the result of individual actions, usually from people close to you. For example someone may publish a picture of you without your consent, revenge porn is an extreme example but even good friends can do it to you. They can send stuff to the wrong person(s), use public means of communication, get infected with all kinds of malware, etc...
It also won't help with security related issues. Ashley Madison didn't sell anyone's data, pirates did it for them. Properly securing personal data is more important than privacy policies, because you can forget about it once the data is in the hands of criminals. Obviously not storing data in the first place is even better but it is not always possible.
And finally, a lot of actors don't actually sell your data, they use it to send you targeted ads without letting advertisers know about you.
They discontinued Allo, one of their many messaging app. The fact that there are many is the problem, they can't seem to get it right.
We already have an open protocol: XMPP. Everyone, including Google, turned away from it for some reason.
The other open protocol that is specific to phones is SMS, which is still the most popular way of communicating in some countries (those where SMS is cheap and reliable).
The grammatically correct pronoun is "it".
It is rarely used on people but I don't see any technical reason why it shouldn't.
As mentioned in TFS Go and Chess are complete information games, and that's what AlphaZero is good at. What AI is struggling with for now is incomplete information games, like Poker.
And every job that I know off that isn't already being replaced by robots are VERY incomplete information games. If you want to convince yourself, just read a real life instruction manual or specification document, or even worse, ask a customer what he wants.
Yes, that's how you use OTP. The issues are:
- You need a true RNG, i.e. specialized hardware (/dev/random may be ok). And these typically have a rather low bandwidth. That's fine for short message, less so for HD video.
- You need to transfer a lot of data using your secure (e.g. physical) channel. As much random data as all the data you intend to send. It means that it can't be memorized or told, you need a physical support, like a USB stick for instance. There is quite a lot of work involved in order to transfer it, store it securely and destroy it. All that logistical nightmare opens a lot of potential attack vectors. Printed paper can be seen on camera, USB sticks can be stolen, your mailbox can be opened, people can follow you to your in-person meeting.
- How are you going to tell your partner how to meet you for the OTP transfer? Are you comfortable giving out your physical location on an insecure channel, when your communications are so secret that they justify using an OTP. The catch-22 where you need a secure channel to establish a secure channel is exactly the reason why public key cryptography exist.
OTP has its uses. For example the "red phone" famously used it, and it was perfectly justified, but a communication line between government officials of two competing superpowers is definitely a special case. "Competing" is key here. Because neither knew the the state of the art of the other regarding cryptanalysis, and there is no way they would share that knowledge, a neutral, simple, and proven secure algorithm makes sense despite the logistical nightmare.
I think we should stop with that 24 FPS nonsense. It is not good, it is an artefact caused by technical limitations. Some people say it make films more film-like, that there is some artistic value in it, etc... I call bullshit, it is not a conscious artistic choice, it is a technical limitation.
If some directors chose to make some part 24 FPS like others chose to do black and white, then sure, that's art, but choosing that frame rate just because that's how cameras and projectors are setup isn't.
The only argument that makes sense IMHO is one of cost. More FPS is expensive: larger file sizes, more rendering time, a need for more sensitive camera sensors, etc.. Budget that can be better spent elsewhere. There is also value in having a standard, and 24 FPS isn't that bad a choice.
Frame interpolation is a work around that technical limitation, it is far from perfect but some people enjoy it. That's why TV manufacturers put it in here, film snobs be damned. Directors should learn from it instead of calling it "the end of all good things": many people want smooth motion.
That being said, I am totally fine with 24 FPS, and I don't use interpolation, but just be honest and say it is preliminary a cost saving measure, with maybe a hint of nostalgia.
OTP is private key / symmetric cryptography: you have to transfer the one time pad to the other party using a secure channel before you can communicate securely. That would be the equivalent of AES, and AES is still unbroken, even with a hypothetical quantum computer.
The advantage of algorithms like AES over OTP is that OTP is very inconvenient. It needs a massive amount of true random data (using a PRNG would turn it into just another stream cipher), and all of it has to be transferred securely. That inconvenience can introduce more security problems than its mathematical perfection solves.
What quantum computers break is public key cryptography. Public key cryptography allows secure communication when no secure channel exists, which is typical on the internet. OTP doesn't fix the problem. If anything, it makes it worse. The reason quantum computer could break current public key cryptography is that all algorithms that are used in practice rely on the fact that the discrete logarithm or integer factorization problems are hard, and quantum computers can theoretically solve them easily using the Shor algorithm.
Apple is right, coverage will be spotty at first, deployment will take time.
However, it won't take long before it becomes an essential feature. And only then, Apple will release a 5G iPhone, and those who bought last year model will buy the new one for that reason.
Smartphone are starting to face the same problem as PCs, people don't need to upgrade because the old one is good enough for just about everything, and things are slowing down even more. 5G will be a real upgrade, and apple will make sure to time it well in order to maximize their sales.
If you do that, just make sure you don't intend to come back in the winter.
I don't know about the US specifically but moving minor crimes to a higher court increases the chances of having it dismissed.
A judge accustomed to murder cases probably doesn't want to be bothered with kids running torrent sites and will probably do their best to get them dismissed ASAP in order to deal with serious affairs.
In fact, in France, the strategy is the opposite. Instead of pushing for severe punishment, the music industry wants enforcement to work more like parking tickets: a small fine that is usually payed without even an audience.
The plants you mentioned use EPR, a new kind of reactor, definitely not something designed in the 60s.
Like every large scale project, delays and cost overruns are to be expected. Hopefully, future builds will be more profitable and help recover the costs. And I highly suspect that legal and bureaucratic issues played a major part in these delays.
As for the cost going up, it is worth noting that nuclear never was cheap. The reason France is so versed in nuclear power is the result of a political decision, not free market economy. France has always been at the forefront of nuclear technology, and the government wants it to stay that way. It is also France's response to the 1973 oil crisis and a way to limit dependency on fossil fuel imports.
Equifax, Wells Fargo and the NSA are not IBM's competitors, In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they were major IBM customers.
Amazon, Google and Microsoft are competitors, Facebook is most likely indifferent so there is no harm (for IBM) to include them.
When companies like Apple and IBM criticize Google and others on privacy grounds, they don't do it because they care about you. They do it because they know that these companies have no other choice since it is their business model. Apple and IBM make money in other ways, like selling overpriced hardware, and if legislation restricts data collection, they will gain a competitive advantage.
It might be true when we are talking about programming.
But code doesn't exist in a vacuum. A web store front sells products, an ECU runs an engine, a video game entertains, a search engine is there for people to find what they need. And you won't be a good programmer unless you know about the job your code is going to accomplish. The store front requires knowledge about the products being sold, and the marketing behind it. The ECU requires some understanding of mechanical engineering, the video game requires understanding of game design and the search engine may involve linguistics.
And it takes time to get into something you might know nothing about. And chances are that your next job will be in a completely different field, so while you can capitalize on what you learned when it comes to programming, you are back to square one when it comes to understanding the context.
What?
The presence of a logician makes it sound like a riddle, knights and knaves style. That's unless they walk into a bar, that would be joke.
The mistake is to think that you need all of C++, you don't, especially not if you are a beginner.
You can write C++ like you write C if you want, or on the opposite, go all smart pointer and not write a single "delete" yourself. You can completely ignore templates except for the minimum requited to use the STL (that's if you are using the STL). Not using exceptions is totally fine, a lot of projects don't. And if you want you can use lambdas but no classes.
Each feature is a tool for a job, but you don't have to use the entire toolbox at once. But it is good to have them for when you are faced with a specific problem, and then you learn to use it, and get better. Ideally, in a team, there should be an expert with a good grasp on what the language has to offer in order to give directions but having a whole team of experts is in no way required.
An implant is "something you have" not "something you are". Like a badge or a key.
If it is properly designed, you can't clone these chips, and what they contain is a secret. You can, however, change them, transfer them, etc... even though the form factor makes it more difficult than usual.
It is the opposite of biometrics, which you can't change or transfer, but they are not secret.
The issue is not about intent. The situation is the same with a keypad, RFID reader or a fingerprint scanner. If you enter the code/put your hand one the reader/put your finger on the scanner, you show your intent. The issue is about the fact that neither a fingerprint nor a username are secrets. The private key inside the implanted chip is.
Wait, BFS never flew, we don't even know how it will look like. Same thing for New Glenn. They and SLS are all at the same step which is "no rocket". And considering that SpaceX is a hype machine and Blue Origin is so secretive, there is no way we can get a reliable picture.
Falcon 9 and SLS don't even compare. The first one is a workhorse rocket designed to put a typical payload into LEO cheaply. SLS is designed to go beyond earth orbit. It is reflected by the fuel choice in the second stage. Falcon 9 uses the same cheap and effective kerosene engine as their first stage and SLS uses hydrogen, which is higher performance but harder to work with. So yeah, the Falcon 9 is awesome, but one resounding success doesn't mean they can tackle every problem. And the field where BFR, New Glenn and SLS are playing is an entirely different one.
My money is on none of them, I keep it in my pocket until I can see the rockets flying.
The goal with memory safe languages is not to be absolutely safe, because it is impossible. The goal is to confine the unsafe parts into something manageable. It can be a small library or runtime written in C or even in assembly. Or, in the case of Rust (I didn't read TFA but I suppose it is at least mentioned), into marked "unsafe" blocks.
No one, I think, really blames C for being memory unsafe. They blame the fact it makes the entire code base is potentially unsafe when less than a percent needs to be.
Note that I still think that the security risks associated with C and C++, while real, are overrated when it comes to the language selection.
C/C++ is not a language
C/C++ is one.
You are overthinking things. Your data aren't priceless, nothing about you is priceless. There are people whose entire job is to put a dollar amount on everything about you, including your personal data. Google and Facebook are for profit companies, and it is all that matters.
As for taking over the world, you can't do that without force, and Google doesn't have that. On the physical side of things, they are helpless. The second the US government decides that Google is a serious threat, then goodbye Google. These data are useless if you can't access them because there is a guy with a gun between you and the terminal. Big companies are limited to monetizing your data within the socially acceptable limits. And CEOs are perfectly fine with it, because that's how they get to keep their yachts.
I guess it is that weird situation where everyone is fine with X but everyone think the others aren't. C-levels are normally above that.
What is possible is that they don't want the public to see Apple computers at Dell, because it gives out the image of a company not trusting their own products. And that can be mistaken as "executives don't wan't to see an Apple computer", while in fact, they may be the ones who care the least when they are in private.
Some of the high-tech / low-tech weirdness can be explained by the fact that people tend to go high tech only when necessary.
Fax machines saw a much wider adoption in Japan than in the west. One reason is that there are no street names in Japan, so finding a place by its address alone is very difficult, and as a result, the usual way of communicating is to fax a map. With fax machines being so ubiquitous, one could use them for written communication, so there is less need for email.
The Japanese were also slow to adopt smartphones, because their cell phones were much more advanced than ours. Interestingly, they could send email, so the personal use of email was a lot more developed in Japan. I also suspect the terrible state of banking and credit cards to have helped the early adoption of NFC payment with public transport cards.
There are many other examples, like excellent 3G/4G coverage in some developing countries, because when you need internet access, putting cell towers is cheaper than building a copper wire network from scratch.
As long as there is an incentive to get any result, there will be fraud. In fact you don't need any incentive at all.
If I love the color red and the blue stuff turns out better, I will be tempted to tweak the results.
It is the usual argument from manufacturers, it is both right and wrong.
Most people really don't care, same for removable batteries, physical keyboards, styluses, etc... What people care about now is a good screen ratio. Manufacturers make phones for the majority and so, omit the niche features and go with the flow (i.e. copy Apple). But in the end, many people don't get what they want and all phones are the same.
It is, I think, a manifestation of Hotelling's law. A game theory principle that says that for every actor, it is more profitable to go towards the average, even though the net result benefits no one. It is the same law that can explain why the local McDonald's is right next to the Burger King.